Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

Mr Jack · 24 Mar 2015 at 21:05

Von Smallhausen said:
How did they get it wrong ?

They shot someone who wasn't actually a threat. In an ideal world, the police wouldn't do that.

Of course, we don't live in that ideal world and we never will. Police officers faced with life-or-death decisions to make in a split second can't get up to that standard. In this case, it seems that the police involved acted in a reasonable fashion that falls within the standard of lawful killing or cleared of wrongdoing but that doesn't mean that their actions were as excellent as they could be. The aim should be to learn and do better next time.

cu3ed · 24 Mar 2015 at 21:14

Mr Jack said:
They shot someone who wasn't actually a threat. In an ideal world, the police wouldn't do that.

Of course, we don't live in that ideal world and we never will. Police officers faced with life-or-death decisions to make in a split second can't get up to that standard. In this case, it seems that the police involved acted in a reasonable fashion that falls within the standard of lawful killing or cleared of wrongdoing but that doesn't mean that their actions were as excellent as they could be. The aim should be to learn and do better next time.

How exactly is that even humanly possible in these situations?
A situation the police where put into.

deuse · 24 Mar 2015 at 21:21

Von Smallhausen said:
How did they get it wrong ?

The main word in that article was "probably" no hard facts. A bit like the Carlsberg adverts.

MarkeR · 24 Mar 2015 at 21:54

Mr Jack said:
They shot someone who wasn't actually a threat. In an ideal world, the police wouldn't do that.

Of course, we don't live in that ideal world and we never will. Police officers faced with life-or-death decisions to make in a split second can't get up to that standard. In this case, it seems that the police involved acted in a reasonable fashion that falls within the standard of lawful killing or cleared of wrongdoing but that doesn't mean that their actions were as excellent as they could be. The aim should be to learn and do better next time.

They did exactly what was required from them. One less gun carrying gang thug on the streets!

manius · 24 Mar 2015 at 21:57

the way i see it if your carrying a gun then your fair game to be shot its against the law you know that if your seen with a gun then the armed police are going to turn up and there is a posibility you will get shot he knew that when he left with the gun so his fault

Von Smallhausen · 24 Mar 2015 at 22:11

Mr Jack said:
They shot someone who wasn't actually a threat. In an ideal world, the police wouldn't do that.

We don't live in the ideal world and you and I have the luxury of hindsight, something the cops didn't have in a split second where a life and death decision has to be made.

Von Smallhausen · 24 Mar 2015 at 22:12

deuse said:
The main word in that article was "probably" no hard facts. A bit like the Carlsberg adverts.

The IPCC never submit a glowing report. Criticisms must be had.

balky12 · 24 Mar 2015 at 22:59

Didn't the police have intelligence that duggan was to buy a gun and use it in a gang related incident.

From this intel they got the seller of the gun and caught duggan with the gun on him.

So duggan bought and possessed a gun illegally with intent to use it. Got caught and paid the ultimate sacrifice.

People here are saying the police got it wrong? Righto.

In my opinion anyone carrying a gun could be a threat, someone who has gone out their way to obtain one illegally even more so.

It's tragic that someone died but live by the sword die by the sword.

Tl:dr if you don't want to be shot by armed police a good way to go about it would to not be in possession of a gun illegally.

dowie · 24 Mar 2015 at 23:05

Von Smallhausen said:
We don't live in the ideal world and you and I have the luxury of hindsight, something the cops didn't have in a split second where a life and death decision has to be made.

we don't have a luxury of knowing what actually happened either, bodycams and dashboard cams might help there in future

while I don't think the police have planted the gun or any other such nonsense it isn't implausible that they might have screwed up when shooting him, he might well have thrown the gun almost immediately and then been mistakenly shot by an officer who merely thought he saw a gun when it had already been thrown before the officer even got out of the car and round to facing Duggan

the guy is a hardened criminal and if he's throwing that gun he's doing so immediately, they didn't even see the thing getting thrown, it wasn't found until they'd searched all over the area

maybe it was a split second decision and they did shoot him almost immediately before it was thrown, maybe it had already been thrown and they mistakenly thought he had a gun on him when confronting him... we can only assume it is the former based on the testimony of the officers themselves

ElliottJames · 24 Mar 2015 at 23:08

RIP Duggan

Mr Joshua · 25 Mar 2015 at 01:50

Meh, a criminal with an illegally held handgun was shot and killed.

Don't start none, won't be none.

Scania · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:36

balky12 said:
Didn't the police have intelligence that duggan was to buy a gun and use it in a gang related incident.

From this intel they got the seller of the gun and caught duggan with the gun on him.

So duggan bought and possessed a gun illegally with intent to use it. Got caught and paid the ultimate sacrifice.

People here are saying the police got it wrong? Righto.

In my opinion anyone carrying a gun could be a threat, someone who has gone out their way to obtain one illegally even more so.

It's tragic that someone died but live by the sword die by the sword.

Tl:dr if you don't want to be shot by armed police a good way to go about it would to not be in possession of a gun illegally.

Nail & Head.

Castiel · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:40

Don't own an illegal weapon then you won't get shot. It's simple really.

The Police are not at fault here. Duggan is.

Mr Jack · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:40

Von Smallhausen said:
We don't live in the ideal world and you and I have the luxury of hindsight, something the cops didn't have in a split second where a life and death decision has to be made.

Absolutely. Which is exactly what I say in the rest of the post you quoted. In this case they justifiably made the wrong decision. That's not consistent with your glowing assessment of what the report says.

Mr Jack · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:41

Castiel said:
Don't own an illegal weapon then you won't get shot. It's simple really.

There's no death penalty in this country.

Castiel · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:44

Mr Jack said:
There's no death penalty in this country.

And he wasn't given one. Since when was he sentenced to capital punishment?

He died because his actions led to it, of course things can be learned from this incident, as they always should...but the police were not at fault here, he was.

fatiain · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:45

Mr Jack said:
There's no death penalty in this country.

No there isn't, but if you'r out in public with an illegal handgun, expect to end up staring down the barrel of an H&K MP5.

Don't do as you're told by the highly trained officers with their bigger and better guns, expect to get shot.

Terminal_Boy · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:48

Mr Jack said:
There's no death penalty in this country.

Correct.

Mark Duggan was not sentenced to death.

His actions brought about a series of events which resulted in his death.

Mr Jack · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:53

Castiel said:
He died because his actions led to it, of course things can be learned from this incident, as they always should...but the police were not at fault here, he was.

No, he died because a Police Officer incorrectly judged him a threat to them and then shot him. That judgement is understandable in the context, but it was still incorrect. It's not okay for the police to shoot people just because they're carrying out a criminal act, including carrying an illegal firearm. The police are rightly empowered to use lethal force to protect themselves and public from immediate danger.

To argue otherwise is to endorse a death penalty for the crime, and one administered without judge or jury.

Castiel · 25 Mar 2015 at 08:58

Mr Jack said:
No, he died because a Police Officer incorrectly judged him a threat to them and then shot him. That judgement is understandable in the context, but it was still incorrect. It's not okay for the police to shoot people just because they're carrying out a criminal act, including carrying an illegal firearm. The police are rightly empowered to use lethal force to protect themselves and public from immediate danger.

To argue otherwise is to endorse a death penalty for the crime, and one administered without judge or jury.

Show me where he was given a death sentence from a UK court or retract the statement, he simplify wasn't given a death penalty. He died in the commission of a crime.

The rest of what you said simply illustrates what I said...no gun, he wouldn't have been shot..the police acted lawfully, they could do better in future as things are learned from experience etc, thus the need for investigations in all shootings...but it was justified....you said it yourself.